5 ms·
Third on the front page and no comments about how this is a total misrepresentation and/or a huge leap? C'mon folks - this is where I come for due diligence on
by awillen 5y ago
Third on the front page and no comments about how this is a total misrepresentation and/or a huge leap? C'mon folks - this is where I come for due diligence on these kinds of things.
- nh23423fefe 5y agoSpam, for want of content, is no virtue.
- awillen 5y agoThis begs the age-old question - whose content is less valuable: the person who posts the substanceless comment or the person who replies to it with an equally substanceless comment pointing out that it's a substanceless comment? Ethicists may never come to a consensus (at least not until they can agree on who's worse between the person who ccs a huge number of people who should be bcced or the person who replies all saying that they should have bcced everyone and asking everyone not to reply all).
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5y agoMaybe they're both undesirable.
- moralestapia 5y agoGood leap forward but much more than 99% is needed, at least 5-6 nines. Thing is that, as you add more qubits, "operation fidelity" (as they call it) goes down exponentially, maybe even superexponentially (?), so it's very hard to keep it within an acceptable range on larger systems.
- awillen 5y agoThat is a helpful summary - thanks!
- pyinstallwoes 5y agoSo is quantum uncertainty a feature or a bug?
- ryneandal 5y agoYes.
- pyinstallwoes 5y agoNeither a feature or a bug, nor not a feature or a bug.
- ct520 5y agogave me a chuckle. Thank you for the summary and commentary.
- grungegun 5y agoFalse, except for a naive implementation, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_threshold_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_threshold_theorem If you look at the theorem, it is definitely sub-exponential in the number of qubits needed to correct for error.
- moralestapia 5y agoSure, in theory, in practice there's all sort of physical constraints on the hardware that add/depend on each other and whose complexity "grows" (I'm abusing the term, I know) much faster than linear, hence why I used the term exponential. "Quantum mechanical states are extremely fragile and require near absolute isolation from the environment. Such conditions are hard to create and typically require temperatures near absolute zero and shielding from radiation. Thus, building quantum computers is expensive and difficult. The challenge increases dramatically with increasing size (number of qubits and the length of time they must be coherent) and thus only small to medium scale computers have been built so far.", from [1]. Also, I recommend reading out the whole article as it gives a nice, broad, overview of the challenges in place, it's not as easy as putting 1 qubit + 1 qubit together. 1: Quantum Computing: An Overview Across the System Stack, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.07240.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.07240.pdf
- s1dev 5y agoThere is an extremely broad range of scaling between linear and exponential… Even in architectures with nearest neighbor gates, the (multiplicative) overhead stemming from error correction will only need to be logarithmic in the size of the computation. The constants may be unfavorable, but a log is still a log. See for example https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0928 https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0928 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2984 https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2984
- grungegun 5y agoActually, it doesn't increase much faster than linear. It's quasilinear, and so in O(n^(1+\epsilon) for all \epsilon > 0. There are a variety of such results, so most objections don't hold weight. The paper you linked to names challenges, but it only states those in respect to reaching practical scaling, which is a result of the constant that is associated with the growth rate, but not the growth rate itself.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]